News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

You can read those articles? I'm impressed, Romanian not being a commonly spoken language in the west. I don't know much of the situation in western Romania, but I do know that in the north east Greek Catholics are held in suspicion by both the Latin rite Catholics and the Orthodox. Any idea if the situation is different towards Hungary? Much as I wish that the Greek catholics were still Orthodox (especially given the political nature of their origins) I'm glad to see that my church has returned their property.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

I can read and understand Romanian, I can also write it but I can't speak that much cause i don't have the practice. It's funny cause most Romanians can understand Spanish by listening but Mexicans cannot (I don't know if the Spanish people can). I have always wanted to learn that language.

I think it's fair that the churches are returned to the legitimate owners, the Greek-Catholics, at least with those churches that were built by them. The Greek-Catholic Church made a great contribution for the Romanian nationality, the unification of the principalities, its religious scholars and historians are respected by the Orthodox Church.

Ther was a time in which both Churches were very close to full unity at least in the local level, during the monarchy, before the Communist invasion. The Greek-Catholic Church was treated unfairly, it was accused as being hard-core Fascist and collaborating with the Iron Guard and so on, while in fact only a very small group of clerics supported it. The main hierarchs always remained neutral.

I can read and understand Romanian, I can also write it but I can't speak that much cause i don't have the practice. It's funny cause most Romanians can understand Spanish by listening but Mexicans cannot (I don't know if the Spanish people can). I have always wanted to learn that language.

I think it's fair that the churches are returned to the legitimate owners, the Greek-Catholics, at least with those churches that were built by them. The Greek-Catholic Church made a great contribution for the Romanian nationality, the unification of the principalities, its religious scholars and historians are respected by the Orthodox Church.

Ther was a time in which both Churches were very close to full unity at least in the local level, during the monarchy, before the Communist invasion. The Greek-Catholic Church was treated unfairly, it was accused as being hard-core Fascist and collaborating with the Iron Guard and so on, while in fact only a very small group of clerics supported it. The main hierarchs always remained neutral.

I can read and understand Spanish (much more than my couple of terms of school Spanish should allow me), and that's down to my Romanian. I also don't have any great difficulty understanding Italian, which is far closer to Romanian than Spanish. Romanians can generally understand Italian (and to a lesser extent Spanish) pretty easily but, as you have noted the reverse is not true, and it's not just limited to Mexicans. I think it has something to do with the grammar (most Romance languages are very simplified compared to Latin, Romanian isn't) combined with the Slavonic and Dacian vocabulary, which are often commonly used but frequently have a less used Latin derived synonym.

On the return of property, I wholeheartedly agree with you, though I do wish they would return to their mother church. I would much rather return them to the Church than return churches to them but, as this is not an option, I support my church's actions in this.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

I think it's fair that the churches are returned to the legitimate owners, the Greek-Catholics, at least with those churches that were built by them. The Greek-Catholic Church made a great contribution for the Romanian nationality, the unification of the principalities, its religious scholars and historians are respected by the Orthodox Church.

I now live six months of the year or so in Romania, so this matter comes close to my new home. There is nothing to respect about the U-word . It was just a ploy of the Vatican to weaken the progressing hold of the Orthodox faith in Transylvania and spread papism to other parts of Eastern Europe. Since the leaders of the state owe fealty to the Church, they had a responsibility to take buildings from these heretics and give them over to the use of the Orthodox Church. Why defend heretics in calling for the return of these properties?

Now, most people making this argument are doing so from ethnic tension: the U-word church is seen as a tool of the Austro-Hungarians. But since the biggest complaint my ethnically Romanian friends have about me is that I'm too crazy about Hungarians, Hungarian language, Hungarian culture, etc., then it certainly isn't the case for me. I just want the Orthodox faith to prevail in Romania (bringing everyone to it, Romanian, Hungarian, and Roma alike) and the other sects to disappear.

The Orthodox faith in Transylvania at the time of the Union of Alba Julia was under severe threat, Romanians had started to convert to Calvinism and the Greek or Slavic Bishops under Turkish control were unable to defend the faithful.

The people who accepted union with Rome just wanted to save their identity and their Church. It was the Calvinists and not the Papal faction who wanted to Hungarize the Romanian people (many Romanians who converted to Calvinism were eventualy Hungarized, just as the Armenians, but this did not happen with the Romanian Transylvanians who entered union with Rome).

The leaders of the Communist State did now have any loyalty to the Church, it was just a matter of convenience for them to supress the Uniate Church that was seen as a link to the West and to merge it with the largest religious body, not because they liked the Orthodox Church, but because it was a National Church that would be easier to control than a Vatican-supported body.

Some U-word prelates did work closely with the Habsburg authorities but after all they managed to defend the Romanian identity in Transylvania, they actively supported the union movement, etc. However, I don't blame Romanians since it's very hard to understand one's history without nationalist passion.

The truth for me is that Protestantism and its secular values are the biggest threat to Christianity, a powerful, conservative Roman Church in the West and a strong united Orthodox faith in the East are necesary if we want to save the Western culture and values.

Visarion Puiu, the last Romanian-Orthodox Bishop of Chisinau (Besarabia) was one of the most hard-line Orthodox Bishops and an ardent Romanian patriot, he actively opposed the Vatican-Western power before. However, when the Communists took power and they suppressed the U-word Church he had previously opposed, he unmasked their actions. He wrote on the necesity of Church unity (not the kind of "Ecumenism" of our times), Pope Pius XII even offered to make him cardinal, he rejected of course.

The Romanian Orthodox Church is ever in need of new buildings now. Churches in many cities are so full that a large amount of people (often the majority) has to stand outside and listen to the liturgy over the loudspeaker. There is no reason why church buildings should be given over to heretics when the Orthodox faith itself is flourishing and in need of them. This has nothing to do with a necessity to cooperate with papalists to save Western civilization.

The Romanian Orthodox Church is ever in need of new buildings now. Churches in many cities are so full that a large amount of people (often the majority) has to stand outside and listen to the liturgy over the loudspeaker. There is no reason why church buildings should be given over to heretics when the Orthodox faith itself is flourishing and in need of them. This has nothing to do with a necessity to cooperate with papalists to save Western civilization.

Regarding these buildings - It should be the people themselves who should decide by vote on what they want to be. The property should then go to the majority vote and provisions should be made for the minority vote. This is what the 'Quadripartite Ageement' signed by the ROC, UOC, UGCC, & the RCC provided. Hadn the UGCC & the RCC abided and honored they agreement they signed you wouldn't be having the problems you are having now in Ukraine and elsewhere including Romania.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

That possition is very understandable, leaving the religious differences aside, the majority of the people are now Orthodox and the Greek-Catholics are a defunct, latinized minority twhose members defect to Protestantism or join the mainstram Orthodox and Roman-Catholic Churches.

Things could be much better for them if an agreement had been reached but there was very few possibility for this agreement to be eventualy respected, in those villages where it exists, the Orthodox refuse to share former Greek-Catholic churches with them, they don't even let them have one or two liturgies per month (and that's what the Catholics sometimes do to us here).

It would be normal to think that the Orthodox Church being a majority, has enough financial sources to build new churches. The hierarchy has failed to gain recognition from the State as the National Church for example.

According to some sources, after 1989 just like in Ukraine there was a strong movement toward Uniatism in Western Romania, but unlike Ukraine where the people refused to be sold by JPII'S burocrats and took their churches by force, Romanian U-word waited for the Vatican's "help" and were left with nothing. There are cases where the Roman priests themselves refuse to share their parishes with them.

That possition is very understandable, leaving the religious differences aside, the majority of the people are now Orthodox and the Greek-Catholics are a defunct, latinized minority twhose members defect to Protestantism or join the mainstram Orthodox and Roman-Catholic Churches.

Things could be much better for them if an agreement had been reached but there was very few possibility for this agreement to be eventualy respected, in those villages where it exists, the Orthodox refuse to share former Greek-Catholic churches with them, they don't even let them have one or two liturgies per month (and that's what the Catholics sometimes do to us here).

It would be normal to think that the Orthodox Church being a majority, has enough financial sources to build new churches. The hierarchy has failed to gain recognition from the State as the National Church for example.

According to some sources, after 1989 just like in Ukraine there was a strong movement toward Uniatism in Western Romania, but unlike Ukraine where the people refused to be sold by JPII'S burocrats and took their churches by force, Romanian Uniats waited for the Vatican's "help" and were left with nothing. There are cases where the Roman priests themselves refuse to share their parishes with them.

It is rather ironic how the Vatican's favorites in the region, Poland and Austria, were the ones which prevented Western Ukraine from being united to Ukraine. The UGCC doesn't accept the forced union with the Orthodox by the Soviets, but they do accept the forced union of the territory to the Ukraine, also done by the Soviets.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

CrCulver , comparing to Finland , Romania is way better , our main religion is Orthodoxy.Although in Transilvania there was a time when there were more greek-catholics than orthodox in some areas and some calvinists.The times of my grandparents childhood or even younger.In 1930 in Transilvania the majority were greek-catholics 31,1% , orthodox 27,8%.The relationship between orthodox and catholics are amiabile , no conflicts , we used to share churches or cathedrals together, here in the West Transilvania , Crisana , Banat zone, I`m from around this zones btw, from Arad.The relationships are good and amiabile , not like in some states where there is rivality.Anyway from the census of 2002 , 86,7% romanians are orthodox, that is 18,8 million romanians from the totall of 21,6 millions : here is the result of the census http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl6.html

I would say that we stay pretty good CrCulver , comparing with other countries , and as I heard we have the smallest rate of athiests in the world.Anyway we are a little religious as people.

I think it's fair that the churches are returned to the legitimate owners, the Greek-Catholics, at least with those churches that were built by them. The Greek-Catholic Church made a great contribution for the Romanian nationality, the unification of the principalities, its religious scholars and historians are respected by the Orthodox Church.

I now live six months of the year or so in Romania, so this matter comes close to my new home. There is nothing to respect about the Uniates. It was just a ploy of the Vatican to weaken the progressing hold of the Orthodox faith in Transylvania and spread papism to other parts of Eastern Europe. Since the leaders of the state owe fealty to the Church, they had a responsibility to take buildings from these heretics and give them over to the use of the Orthodox Church. Why defend heretics in calling for the return of these properties?

Now, most people making this argument are doing so from ethnic tension: the Uniate church is seen as a tool of the Austro-Hungarians. But since the biggest complaint my ethnically Romanian friends have about me is that I'm too crazy about Hungarians, Hungarian language, Hungarian culture, etc., then it certainly isn't the case for me. I just want the Orthodox faith to prevail in Romania (bringing everyone to it, Romanian, Hungarian, and Roma alike) and the other sects to disappear.

I think it's fair that the churches are returned to the legitimate owners, the Greek-Catholics, at least with those churches that were built by them. The Greek-Catholic Church made a great contribution for the Romanian nationality, the unification of the principalities, its religious scholars and historians are respected by the Orthodox Church.

I now live six months of the year or so in Romania, so this matter comes close to my new home. There is nothing to respect about the Uniates. It was just a ploy of the Vatican to weaken the progressing hold of the Orthodox faith in Transylvania and spread papism to other parts of Eastern Europe. Since the leaders of the state owe fealty to the Church, they had a responsibility to take buildings from these heretics and give them over to the use of the Orthodox Church. Why defend heretics in calling for the return of these properties?

Now, most people making this argument are doing so from ethnic tension: the Uniate church is seen as a tool of the Austro-Hungarians. But since the biggest complaint my ethnically Romanian friends have about me is that I'm too crazy about Hungarians, Hungarian language, Hungarian culture, etc., then it certainly isn't the case for me. I just want the Orthodox faith to prevail in Romania (bringing everyone to it, Romanian, Hungarian, and Roma alike) and the other sects to disappear.

Very well put.

Unfortunately, not exactly true.

Under the Romanian Constitution which came into force with the reunification of the country after WWI, the Orthodox Church was the "dominant Church," but the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" was given the status of "Romanian church" alongside the Romanian Orthodox Church, and "priority before any other religion" excepting the Romanian Orthodox (other Orthodox is not clear). The King didn't owe fealty to the Orthodox Church, because he was in communion with the Vatican himself, and pushed through a Concordant with the Vatican of questionable constitutionality.

The Communists seized the churches, but of course owed no fealty to the Orthodox Church. At the time the Vatican was trying to get the Romanian Orthodox Church to unite with the Vatican's "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" in a united front against the Communist. The union came, but not on the Vatican's terms.

The Post Communist Constitution pretty much bars the leaders of the state from owing fealty to the Orthodox Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Romanian Orthodox Church is ever in need of new buildings now. Churches in many cities are so full that a large amount of people (often the majority) has to stand outside and listen to the liturgy over the loudspeaker. There is no reason why church buildings should be given over to heretics when the Orthodox faith itself is flourishing and in need of them. This has nothing to do with a necessity to cooperate with papalists to save Western civilization.

Regarding these buildings - It should be the people themselves who should decide by vote on what they want to be. The property should then go to the majority vote and provisions should be made for the minority vote. This is what the 'Quadripartite Ageement' signed by the ROC, UOC, UGCC, & the RCC provided. Hadn the UGCC & the RCC abided and honored they agreement they signed you wouldn't be having the problems you are having now in Ukraine and elsewhere including Romania.

Orthodoc

I thought that did happen in Romania and that the majority of the parishioners in most of the parishes in Transylvania voted to remain Orthodox? Please correct me if I am wrong.But after the vote the The Romainian Greek Catholic leaders became "sour grapes" and wanted back all the buildings.

The Romanian Orthodox Church is ever in need of new buildings now. Churches in many cities are so full that a large amount of people (often the majority) has to stand outside and listen to the liturgy over the loudspeaker. There is no reason why church buildings should be given over to heretics when the Orthodox faith itself is flourishing and in need of them. This has nothing to do with a necessity to cooperate with papalists to save Western civilization.

Regarding these buildings - It should be the people themselves who should decide by vote on what they want to be. The property should then go to the majority vote and provisions should be made for the minority vote. This is what the 'Quadripartite Ageement' signed by the ROC, UOC, UGCC, & the RCC provided. Hadn the UGCC & the RCC abided and honored they agreement they signed you wouldn't be having the problems you are having now in Ukraine and elsewhere including Romania.

Orthodoc

I thought that did happen in Romania and that the majority of the parishioners in most of the parishes in Transylvania voted to remain Orthodox? Please correct me if I am wrong.But after the vote the The Romainian Greek Catholic leaders became "sour grapes" and wanted back all the buildings.

Sort of. They refer to the properties as "stolen," and insist that is only because of their "magnimity" and "pursuit of peace" that they will setlle for only the properties to meet their needs, not addressing the question of what happens if and when their needs grow. Of course, what happens if their needs deminish isn't addressed: not a theoretical issue, to judge by the history of St. Alexis Toth. Recently the bishops in Italy told the head of the "Romanian Church united with Rome-Greek Catholic" to not send any married priests to Italy for his flock there (over half a million). Let's see if the rest of the Romanians wise up and come home to Mother Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The properties were stolen by the Communists. I don't believe a vote was taken but that properties were to be divided according to census results, but Greek Catholic complained they were low-balled in the census. In any case it seems the people are content to go the parishes they had been going to regardless of affilaition, very few churches were returned (some being bulldozed rather than returned), and the Romanian Greek Catholic Church is probably 10-20% the size it was before the Communists. Pre-Communist estimates had the Church at 1.5 million, current estimates are 100,00-300,000.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Not to forget that most of those belonging to the predecessor to the OCA, the ROGC Church were formerly Greek Catholics and that their parents and ancestors in the Old Country were Greek Catholics for several hundfred years. If it wasn't for the arrogance and ingnorance of the mainly Irish RC bishops in the US there would have never been an OCA and certainly not a ACROD in this country. These people were happy and satified with their church and maybe that's why many of them in the former East Bloc countries chose to return to the GC Church in opposition to the Moskal led Church.

Not to forget that most of those belonging to the predecessor to the OCA, the ROGC Church were formerly Greek Catholics and that their parents and ancestors in the Old Country were Greek Catholics for several hundfred years. If it wasn't for the arrogance and ingnorance of the mainly Irish RC bishops in the US there would have never been an OCA and certainly not a ACROD in this country. These people were happy and satified with their church and maybe that's why many of them in the former East Bloc countries chose to return to the GC Church in opposition to the Moskal led Church.

That's a pretty simplistic answer. i disagree with the parts in bold for the most part. There was a trend in twhat we call "the old country" already before the immigrants from Galicia and Transcarpathia came to the USA.

Just read the newspapers in Galicia from the 1880's & 1890s and you can see there was a resistance to the increased Latinization of the Eastern rite churches. The Synod of Zamost introcuced or actually confirmed or blessed the Latinization in the Eastern rite catholic church. Why even Ivan Franko, who was a secular writer wrote in newspapers articles against the Latinization and the Synod of Zamost. I remember one of his articles about the decision to no longer allow the 3 bar cross. Then their his his fiction especially the story "The Plague" where he talks about Latinization and how Galicians went across the border to worship at Pochaev.In the early 20th centruy we have the example of Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk. Just read his writings before he converted to Orthodoxy. He was the leader of the Easternizing clergy among the Catholics. He had an earned doctorate and was a seminary professor, very popular with the young married priests. But then he was forbidden to teach.

That's a pretty simplistic answer. i disagree with the parts in bold for the most part. There was a trend in twhat we call "the old country" already before the immigrants from Galicia and Transcarpathia came to the USA.

Just read the newspapers in Galicia from the 1880's & 1890s and you can see there was a resistance to the increased Latinization of the Eastern rite churches. The Synod of Zamost introcuced or actually confirmed or blessed the Latinization in the Eastern rite catholic church. Why even Ivan Franko, who was a secular writer wrote in newspapers articles against the Latinization and the Synod of Zamost. I remember one of his articles about the decision to no longer allow the 3 bar cross. Then their his his fiction especially the story "The Plague" where he talks about Latinization and how Galicians went across the border to worship at Pochaev.In the early 20th centruy we have the example of Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk. Just read his writings before he converted to Orthodoxy. He was the leader of the Easternizing clergy among the Catholics. He had an earned doctorate and was a seminary professor, very popular with the young married priests. But then he was forbidden to teach.

There were some pro-Russian, pro-Orthodox movements among the Rusyns and Ukrainians but they were never a majority and even with this in America not a single Greek Catholic mission or parish approached the Orthodox until the American Latin bishops started hasseling the married priests like St. Alexis Toth (a widower). The majority were content to be Greek Catholic until abused. In Europe things were different. The Communists outlawed the Greek Catholic Church and handed the churches over to the Orthodox. When Communism fell the vast majority in Ukraine and Slovakia who were either underground or going to their old parishes now held by the Orthodox declared themselves Greek Catholic openly again. It would seem only a minority did so in Romania.

And resistance to Latinization does not always equate to movement back to the Orthodox Church. The Servant of God Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky was a great Easternizer but completely loyal to the Pope.

The Synod of Zamost confirmed 4 Latinizations: 1. Suppression of the use of the sponge. 2. Suppression of the infusion of warm water. 3. Inserted the Filioque. 4. Inserted commemoration of the Pope. Many minor Latinizations were snuck in later.

That's a pretty simplistic answer. i disagree with the parts in bold for the most part. There was a trend in twhat we call "the old country" already before the immigrants from Galicia and Transcarpathia came to the USA.

Just read the newspapers in Galicia from the 1880's & 1890s and you can see there was a resistance to the increased Latinization of the Eastern rite churches. The Synod of Zamost introcuced or actually confirmed or blessed the Latinization in the Eastern rite catholic church. Why even Ivan Franko, who was a secular writer wrote in newspapers articles against the Latinization and the Synod of Zamost. I remember one of his articles about the decision to no longer allow the 3 bar cross. Then their his his fiction especially the story "The Plague" where he talks about Latinization and how Galicians went across the border to worship at Pochaev.In the early 20th centruy we have the example of Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk. Just read his writings before he converted to Orthodoxy. He was the leader of the Easternizing clergy among the Catholics. He had an earned doctorate and was a seminary professor, very popular with the young married priests. But then he was forbidden to teach.

There were some pro-Russian, pro-Orthodox movements among the Rusyns and Ukrainians but they were never a majority and even with this in America not a single Greek Catholic mission or parish approached the Orthodox until the American Latin bishops started hasseling the married priests like St. Alexis Toth (a widower). The majority were content to be Greek Catholic until abused. In Europe things were different. The Communists outlawed the Greek Catholic Church and handed the churches over to the Orthodox. When Communism fell the vast majority in Ukraine and Slovakia who were either underground or going to their old parishes now held by the Orthodox declared themselves Greek Catholic openly again.

They could do so in Slovakia from the '60's.

The vast majority in Ukraine were, and remain, Orthodox. Except in the West, where it was more evenly matched.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The vast majority in Ukraine were, and remain, Orthodox. Except in the West, where it was more evenly matched.

The Greek Catholics resurfaced in 1968 in Slovakia during the Prague Spring. 292 Parishes were to vote but after 205 voted Greek Catholic and 35 voted Orthodox the voting was stopped and the remaining 52 were given to the Orthodox. Most of the buildings were not retuned until the early 90s. The Eparchy of Presov was registered but persecution and harassment continued until the fall of the Iron Curtain.

And I was speaking of the vast majority of Greek Catholics who were underground or attending Orthodox parishes.

As I understand the history of 'my' people, the Rusyns/Carpatho-Russians of East Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ukraine, and parts of what is now Romania and Serbia, as well as that of the Halycany (Galicians) of southeast Poland and the Ukrainians of western Ukraine, the 'ping pong' of religion between the Orthodox and the Unia was often more a factor of political manipulation and intrigue by old world powers, including the Vatican, than a factor of faith per se. While I do not endorse all of the sentiments expressed in this link, it gives a fair assessment of the tortured history of one of the peoples of Europe who never experienced self-governing nationhood per se, but were ruled by groups which were similar to them, but nevertheless distinct. "Religion and Carpatho-Russian/Rusyn history are deeply intertwined, often resulting in controversy." http://www.simkovich.org/religion.htm

Truth can be harsh and Deacon Lance's assessment is consistent with the history that I learned from my Orthodox parents. Most of us have relatives and friends here and in the 'old country' who are either Orthodox or Greek Catholic and most of us recognize that the complexities of our peculiar situation, one not experienced by most Orthodox and Roman Catholics, are not easily explained to or understood by others.

In Romania, although the Greek Catholics nowadays especially, are pretty Latinized (they were less so before Communism, most Latinized as a reaction to the Orthodox sponsored persecution of that time ), their initial programme was not to Latinize/copy the Roman rite, but de-Slavicize and bring the local books and rite more in line with the Greek books printed in Venice. And so they did thereby influencing the Orthodox as well.

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

In Romania, although the Greek Catholics nowadays especially, are pretty Latinized (they were less so before Communism, most Latinized as a reaction to the Orthodox sponsored persecution of that time ), their initial programme was not to Latinize/copy the Roman rite, but de-Slavicize and bring the local books and rite more in line with the Greek books printed in Venice. And so they did thereby influencing the Orthodox as well.

This is an interesting point as there are a number of similarities with Greek/Constantinopolitan practice shared by the Romanians and the Rusyns which distinguish the practices and 'rules' set out in their Sluzhebniks/Liturgikons etc... from those of what we used to call the 'High' Russians when I was growing up. When the first Greek Catholics began to return to Orthodoxy at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries, it was assumed that those practices were 'Latin' in that they were distinct from those of the Russian Church. Hence they were vigorously purged despite the fact that many of them were as properly Orthodox as were those of the Russians. Of course I am not defending the true Latinizations imposed by the Synod of Zamost but it does seem that in the early years of the return to Orthodox practice there was a conscious effort to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' as they say!

As I understand the history of 'my' people, the Rusyns/Carpatho-Russians of East Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ukraine, and parts of what is now Romania and Serbia, as well as that of the Halycany (Galicians) of southeast Poland and the Ukrainians of western Ukraine, the 'ping pong' of religion between the Orthodox and the Unia was often more a factor of political manipulation and intrigue by old world powers, including the Vatican, than a factor of faith per se. While I do not endorse all of the sentiments expressed in this link, it gives a fair assessment of the tortured history of one of the peoples of Europe who never experienced self-governing nationhood per se, but were ruled by groups which were similar to them, but nevertheless distinct. "Religion and Carpatho-Russian/Rusyn history are deeply intertwined, often resulting in controversy." http://www.simkovich.org/religion.htm

Truth can be harsh and Deacon Lance's assessment is consistent with the history that I learned from my Orthodox parents. Most of us have relatives and friends here and in the 'old country' who are either Orthodox or Greek Catholic and most of us recognize that the complexities of our peculiar situation, one not experienced by most Orthodox and Roman Catholics, are not easily explained to or understood by others.

Could you please provide an explanation or clearer description of who it is that you are referring to here?

Using the U-word is expressly prohibited unless it is in proper historical context. I would like to let everyone know that you need to tread VERY carefully if you are going to use that word, and you need to provide good historical supplementation if you are going to use it.

As I understand the history of 'my' people, the Rusyns/Carpatho-Russians of East Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ukraine, and parts of what is now Romania and Serbia, as well as that of the Halycany (Galicians) of southeast Poland and the Ukrainians of western Ukraine, the 'ping pong' of religion between the Orthodox and the Unia was often more a factor of political manipulation and intrigue by old world powers, including the Vatican, than a factor of faith per se. While I do not endorse all of the sentiments expressed in this link, it gives a fair assessment of the tortured history of one of the peoples of Europe who never experienced self-governing nationhood per se, but were ruled by groups which were similar to them, but nevertheless distinct. "Religion and Carpatho-Russian/Rusyn history are deeply intertwined, often resulting in controversy." http://www.simkovich.org/religion.htm

Truth can be harsh and Deacon Lance's assessment is consistent with the history that I learned from my Orthodox parents. Most of us have relatives and friends here and in the 'old country' who are either Orthodox or Greek Catholic and most of us recognize that the complexities of our peculiar situation, one not experienced by most Orthodox and Roman Catholics, are not easily explained to or understood by others.

Could you please provide an explanation or clearer description of who it is that you are referring to here?

Using the U-word is expressly prohibited unless it is in proper historical context. I would like to let everyone know that you need to tread VERY carefully if you are going to use that word, and you need to provide good historical supplementation if you are going to use it.

While a derivative term once commonly used to describe individual Eastern Catholics and parish communities in union with Rome has become a pejorative over the years, the term 'Unia' itself has a distinct meaning which is not an insult 'per se'. I would direct the reader (and the mods) to this excerpt from the Byzantine Catholic Church in America (http://www.byzcath.org/ ..an unofficial source run by American Byzantine Catholics) and its article explaining the relationship between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics from their point of view: " During the Counter-Reformation, certain groups of Orthodox Christians entered into full communion with Rome for a variety of reasons - both political and religious - and gradually became incorporated into a rather triumphalist, Counter-Reformation Roman Catholic Church. The policies in creating these "unions" or "Unia" was one of proselytism, and, according to the 1994 Balamand Statement, "one in which the Catholic Church developed the theological vision in which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted." Members of the Orthodox Churches who established full communion with Rome, today known as "Byzantine Catholics" and "Greek Catholics" (or, simply, "Eastern Catholics"), were treated extremely poorly by Rome and were wrongly forced to replace much of their authentic Byzantine patrimony with Roman Catholic practices and theological understandings. While these 'latinizations' were only a byproduct of communion with Rome, they only provided abundant evidence of the flaws in the Catholic policies of that era, which themselves created much bitterness among Eastern Orthodox Christians, and helped to put a damper on Catholic/Orthodox relations for centuries. " http://www.byzcath.org/Faith-and-Worship/East-West-Dialogue-Page1.htm

From the Orthodox side from my own jurisdiction's webpage, acrod.org, I offer the following in which the term 'Unia' is used again in the historical context: "The Ecumenical Patriarch accepted the petition and received the Carpatho-Russian Church into Orthodoxy as a self-governing Diocese. On September 19, 1938, the Diocese was canonized by Patriarch Benjamin I, of thrice-blessed memory, in the name of "The Holy Orthodox Church in Christ" under Patriarchal Decree number 1379. This was the first Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church since the infamous Papal Unia. Father Orestes P. Chornock was consecrated the day prior, September 18, as bishop of the Diocese."http://www.acrod.org/diocese/history

The Simkovich.org article goes to great lengths to expand upon my premise, which I have repeated many times here, that the four hundred years of back and forth between those who pledged loyalty to the Church of Rome (those bound by the various 'Unia') and those who did not (the 'Orthodox') was traumatic and far more nuanced than the simplistic version of that history that polemicists from Orthodoxy or the Catholic Church would like one to believe.

A letter of condolences on the passing of the late Metropolitan Nicholas earlier this year as posted by ACROD from the Greek Catholic Eparch of Muchachevo, Bishop Milan alludes to the history of those impacted by the history of religious strife in and around the Carpathians. Bishop Milan's words bear witness to the reality that those of us who are Orthodox and those who remain Eastern Catholic have worked hard in this country, in spite of a religious history that includes acts of violence, familial destruction and the loss of faith by many on both sides, to try to better understand ourselves, our history and our mutual love for the faith as we each strive, in our own ways, to hold true to the faith of our fathers.

I was drawing a contrast and a distinction between the major religious 'players' in central and east Europe from the period of the mid-sixteenth century through the present, and if anyone was offended by my use of the term in question, I do apologize; but I trust that any careful reader of these pages would know that I have always striven to correct errors made by others when describing Eastern Catholics and their religious practices and to be fair and balanced when discussing the religious history of the Rusyns and western Ukrainians.

I will step in here and state as a Greek Catholic I do not find the terms union or unia as offensive as they are fair and accurate descriptions of what occured. The word Uniate, while happily used by some of my brethren, is offensive not in and of itself, but because it has become aloaded word that is code for traitor or someone to be held in contempt. Context is everything. Isa's continued use of "in submission to the Vatican" is as offensive as Uniate in my opinion.

I will step in here and state as a Greek Catholic I do not find the terms union or unia as offensive as they are fair and accurate descriptions of what occured. The word Uniate, while happily used by some of my brethren, is offensive not in and of itself, but because it has become aloaded word that is code for traitor or someone to be held in contempt. Context is everything. Isa's continued use of "in submission to the Vatican" is as offensive as Uniate in my opinion.

It is used in all the history books and even by Eastern Catholics themselves. So frankly I was surprized that it was banned as a word. I must be out of the loop.